Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: mcglone Date: Nov 22, 2006 6:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'm kind of disappointed


iraq is not just MY issue, at this point it's everyones and if it isn't, it damn well should be! a nations reputation is built over time, but as we've clearly seen, it can be sullied in a heartbeat (or a term and a half).

when i left the forum yesterday, my assignment was to address the crisis in darfur. now, after reading your most recent post, i realize that was only part of it - i have my work cut out for me. quickly, the election. i don't understand your attitude of we (rep.) broke iraq, now you (dem) fix it and pronto! what scares you about a new face with potentially new ideas? it's been what, all of 2 weeks? hard to clean up 6 years of hun like foreign policy. then tack on names like mark foley, tom de lay, and jack ambromoff and boy! they made it a hell of a lot easier for the dems. you also mentioned 'obtaining anobjective' please...the world is waiting... what is your objective?

a poster, willowgorden, had expressed his/her frustration with the recent run of non musical subject matter, i'm sure he/she is not in the only person feeling that way. i would be more than willing to continue this conversation off-list if you wish.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Nov 22, 2006 5:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: I'm kind of disappointed

Ian. This thread is dead, so I'll continue at the risk of offending probably no one.

1. "Objective" is a military term, and it means to identify your goals. This if you'll recall is something the 'repubs toasted Clinton for in Kosovo and since turn about is fair play, Bush is receiving his fair share. I said fair.

Nonetheless, other than an immediate pullout as recommended by Dem John Murtha, no other newly elected official has come forward to attempt to define their strategy to achieve a suitable exit from Iraq. (Read exit as objective.) Murtha was then snubbed for majority leader by his own party.

Instead of receiving a constructive answer regading moving ahead to solve the problems we have in Iraq, you chose to return to pre-election spin and (rightfully) snub the "bad" republican incumbents who were (again rightfully) voted out.
Not a solution, but follows in lock step with the media and party line.

As for the Sudan, neither you or I have the answer. My wager is that it is not politically expedient or beneficial for either party to become engaged. From what I understand, however, is that we are attempting to get a multi-national peacekeeping force engaged, without benefit of US troops. My illustration was hypothetical, and goes to your obvious and ongoing concerns regading the citizens of a war ravaged country. How do you intervene without bloodshed?

That same concern was reason for my final list of questions, which remained unanswered. Which scenario that I listed, all valid, would be or have had the least amount of casualties in Iraq. Continued governance by Saddam? Ongoing boycott by the UN? The civil war that looms ahead?

Since you rejected my premise that the country is incapable of democratic rule, due to their tribal and religious peaceful democratic elections the way to move forward? If so, how would it have been possible without the intervention and unseating of Saddam?

BTW. The news reported that over 100 Iraqui citizens were killed today. No mention whatsoever that US Forces were responsible for a single death.